ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

All possible war contingencies and are constantly updating them. But it is not the norm for a president to have intent and purpose to attack a specific country under trumped up causes nearly a year in advance of the event.

Why you keep trying to defend Bush and his unjustified war in Iraq is beyond me.

The DOD makes contingency plans for dozens of operations... they're set up and periodically reviewed and updated so if a crisis arrives, they can react immediately and 90% of the planning is done. That's been the norm under EVERY President. Having contingency plans and actually doing it are 2 different things. Do you think if we'd had President Gore, we'd invaded Iraq? or he'd even given away the Clinton surplus? NOT likely. Nice try, but no cigar.

You are making a mistaken assumption bfielder. I am not defending President George W. Bush. What I am doing is not defending all the liberal politicians and bureaucrats who worked long and hard for nearly a decade ginning up the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were supporting terrorist. I am not defending all the liberal politicians and bureaucrats who worked long and hard for nearly a decade ginning up the threat that Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction presented to the world. I am not defending all the liberal politicians and bureaucrats that suddenly suffered mass amnesia when those weapons were not used or immediately found after the war started. I am not defending all the liberal politicians and bureaucrats whose politically correct policies crippled our intelligence agencies ability to gather reliable information on terrorist activities; politically correct policies that enabled terrorist to plan and operate undetected and to kill over three thousand people when they destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. I am not defending the liberal politicians and bureaucrats whose words and policies guaranteed the inevitability of a war with Iraq.

In my opinion, if Vice-President Al Gore had won the presidency, he would have continued the Clinton administration’s policy of thumping their chest, making demands, and expressing outrage at Iraq's non-compliance. As an insider before the Central Intelligence Agency was crippled by the Clinton administration’s policies; he would know the consequences of the public finding out that he had been lying to them for eight years.

As far as the Clinton administration’s surplus is concerned, I do not believe that Vice-President All Gore would have thrown away the surplus. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s records, by the end of the Clinton Administration’s last budget in September of 2001 (the federal budget runs from October to September), there was a 32,400,000,000 dollar deficit. You cannot throw away a surplus you do not have or the recession he would have inherited.

To give credit where credit is due; using a common Pentagon activity, that you have confirmed is true, to wrap a conspiracy theory about the Bush administration in is far cleverer than any I have read. You deserve a pat on the back for your ingenuity. Do not worry about the cigar, I do not smoke. I do have a weakness for spicy food. So a jar of Pace picante sauce would be nice and cheaper as well.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

actually led the charge to take us into Iraq wasn't it OTFB. And all but a literal handful of US Senators authorized the war, conservatives and liberals alike.

Frankly, I believe you are smarter than to keep labeling this issue a conservative vs liberal issue. Bush owns Iraq just as Obama owns the stupid increase of troops in Afghanistan that has accomplished nothing and will not achieve it's stated goal.

I am not the one making the Iraq war a conservative vs. liberal issue. As I stated in my last post, I am not defending the Bush administration or anyone else. Since I do not have reverence for any individual politician, political group, or political ideology, I place the blame on everyone involved.

President George W. Bush went to Washington D.C. more interested in getting along with those who hated him and his naivete was demonstrated by him being foolish enough to believe what they had been saying about Iraq and continued to say after he was elected.

As far as President George W. Bush being a conservative, that is a joke. If you judge a politician being conservative or liberal by the policies they support, you will find that President George W. Bush supported the same policies that President John Kennedy supported, even the across the board tax cuts to stimulate the economy; which worked for President John Kennedy, President Ronald Reagan, and President George W. Bush. That would make President George W. Bush just as liberal as President John Kennedy.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

fielder continues to accept the blatant lies that no wmds were found in iraq, when more than 500 chemical weapons (WMDs) were found by U.S. troops in iraq between 2003 and 2011. See the wikileaks documents, fielder. Google "WMDS found in Iraq 2010".

Chemical weapons are WMDs, fielder. They were the first such weapons developed. And the weapons found in Iraq differed little from the WMDs first used in the Battles of the Somme, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battles of Ypres, and other battles in World War II. Same chemicals involved, in fact--mustard gas. (BTW, the 1st battle of the Somme is credited with being the bloodiest day of any war ever, more than one million British, French and German soldiers died in a 24 hour period in that battle. ) The shells containing mustard gas found in stockpiles scattered all over Iraq had German markings on them, and were traced to East German plants from which Hussein had bought them before the Iran-Iraq war.

The 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Saddam Hussein signed, contained a provision stating that Hussein was to destroy ALL stockpiles of WMDs that he possessed. That those 500 WMDs still existed to be found between 2003 and 2011 showed that S. Hussein had no intention of abiding by the cease fire agreement's provisions.

fielder continues the liberal mantra that only nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). But that term has always included chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, the equipment necessary to make them, as well as the delivery vehicles for the weapons.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

yeah fielder, and the US military has plans right now to attack a "right wing militia" that takes over a small town that's at the intersection of two major interstate highways in South Carolina. (never any "leftwing group of crazies", because the military knows that leftists don't have the guts to fight for what they believe).

Dr.DavidC 's 8/22/12 at 8:35 pm post that he heard from a guy who heard that someone else had said that he had heard that the Bush administration had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11 even occurred is quite typical of the lies that leftists love to believe.

Dr.davidC also claims that clinton had a budget surplus, which has been proven multiple times to be a lie. The Treasury Departments "Historical Debt" website, which records the actual debt incurred by the US on a given date, shows that Clinton never had any surpluses. The public debt increased every single year during his term in office, which can only occur if there was a deficit every single year. At no time did the public debt decrease in the Clinton administration other than possibly for a few days. Fiscal year total public debts for 1991 through 2003, with corresponding amounts of the increase in the public debt are given in the table below:

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

fielder, were the 17 documented violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement by Saddam Hussein's regime in denying the inspection teams full and complete access to all areas of Iraq to verify whether there were any WMDs in Iraq, not legal justification for resumption of hostilities against Iraq? were the repeated firings of anti-aircraft weaponry against coalition (including US) aircraft enforcing the "No Fly Zones" that were part of the 1991 cease-fire agreement which S. Hussein had signed not acts of war, justifying resumption of hostilities against Hussein's regime. I knew you hated the truth, but geeeze louise, to refuse to admit that when one party to a cease-fire agreement violates any of the terms of the cease-fire, the other is justified in resuming hostilities against that party is quite ignorant.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

fielder (8/9/12 at 9:01 am): "Hey Yhmil, less than 90 days to go Let's not forget Y's prediction that Obama will declare martial law before the election and use the armed TSA agents to enforce it. Less than 100 days before this event should occur. I can hardly wait!" RESPONSE: Say fielder, if there's nothing to that claim, then why is the Social Security administration buying more than 150,000 of hollowpoint ammo. What about NOAA? What about the EPA buying several tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition? What about the Department of Homeland Security buying over 400 million rounds of ammunition? And this at a time when the Defense department's budget is being cut by nearly 20%?

What about Sharpton's, Jackson's and obama's comments about the Trayvon Martin shooting at the time of the incident in which they made it impossible for Zimmerman to receive a fair trial, advocating race riots all over the country if Zimmerman is not found guilty?

What about Obama's use of "executive privilege" to cover up his involvement in the Fast and Furious debacle in which the obama administration (from the top) apparently ordered ATF agents in the field to ignore violations of fedearl firearms laws to allow weapons to be bought by straw man purchasers to be taken into Mexico, where some, at least have been used to kill at least one US DEA agent, and others to kill hundreds of Mexican citizens? Would you not be screaming to high heaven for the immediate impeachment and removal from office of a Republican president who declared "executive privilege" in such a case? If not, why not?

I notice that any time that anyone presents you with facts, fielder, you claim that that person is "delusional" as if you have some innate ability to determine a person's sanity. (or that your opinions of such sanity are worth diddly).

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Anytime a hurricane goes through the Gulf of Mexico, the oil wells are shut down in case damage causes a breach that could cause crude oil to be pumped into the gulf waters. When a hurricane moves along the shore, the refineries shut down for the same reason as the oil wells and so their employees can move to a safe place. It will take days for everything to be brought back on-line and in the meantime, production of gasoline is slowed and the gasoline being produced will go to those willing to pay the most for it.

On 11 March 2012, I made the comment that liberal politicians and their hard-core liberal supporters are like Goa'uld but without the symbiont or advanced technology they used to subjugate humans. I made that statement because of their humanistic attitude that they are like gods and that anything they say must be true because they said it, that all good things in life come from them, and that no one has a chance in life unless liberals are there to control what they do. But, as anyone who has watched the Stargate SG1 television series knows, the Goa'uld where always fighting each other, to kill or defeat the other and take over their territory, which makes it a flawed comparison.

I have decided that a better comparison would be a hybrid; a combination of Goa'uld, the Borg, Gladys Kravitz, Mister Haney, and that creepy couple on the Vonage commercials that use pies and puppies to entice people to give up their freedom and be just like everybody else. .

Today’s liberals often say that the United States of America’s founding fathers were liberals; therefore, they support the same philosophy that the founding fathers did. That statement is both true and false.

Most of our founding fathers were considered liberal because they practiced what was called “philosophical Liberalism,” which today is often referred to as “classical liberalism,” but the modern definition of liberalism is very different than the definition of liberalism in 1776.

In 1776, conservatives where the ones that supported all powerful governments and the rule of kings and believed that the people where suppose to belong to and work for the good of the state. In 1776, being liberal meant believing that the people where suppose to rule themselves and that government existed to serve the people by protecting the individuals liberty from infringement by others from inside or outside the nation. In other words, liberalism meant supporting maximum freedom for the individual and minimum power for the government.

What conservatism and liberalism represented switched places in the twentieth century and involves a lot of politics, patience, and persistence on the part of socialist. Not able to make inroads like they were in Europe, the socialist started representing themselves as liberals and liberals as conservatives until the liberals got tired of arguing with them about who represented what and basically said fine have it your way. Since then, classical liberalism has been represented by conservatives and socialism has been represented by liberals.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

'The bullets are for Social Security's office of inspector general, which has about 295 agents who investigate Social Security fraud and other crimes, said Jonathan L. Lasher, the agency's assistant IG for external relations.
The agents carry guns and make arrests — 589 last year, Lasher said. They execute search warrants and respond to threats against Social Security offices, employees and customers.
Agents carry .357 caliber pistols, Lasher said. The bullets, which add up to about 590 per agent, are for the upcoming fiscal year. Most will be expended on the firing range.
Some bloggers have taken issue with the type of ammunition the agency is buying, questioning why agents need hollow-point bullets. Hollow-points are known for causing more tissue damage than other bullets when they hit a person because they expand when they enter the body.
The bullets, however, are standard issue for many law enforcement agencies, Lasher said, a fact confirmed by the directors of two law enforcement training centers.
"For practice ammunition, they do not have to be hollow-points, but hollow-points are the normal police round used for duty ammunition due to their ability to stop when they hit an object as opposed to going through it and striking more objects," said William J. Muldoon, president of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training.
"Six hundred rounds per year for training, qualification and I would assume to carry on duty is not out of line at all," said John W. Worden, director of the University of Missouri's Law Enforcement Training Institute. "Hollow points are carried by law enforcement all over the country and are probably the preferred type of ammo no matter what caliber."
The episode illustrates what can happen when a seemingly salacious tidbit gets amplified and embellished on the Internet."

And people with delusional ideas & crazy conspiracy theories like Yhmil buy into it hook, line and sinker!

This is chilling! He was trying to warn us all those years ago. I
used to listen to Paul Harvey all the time. This is exactly what is
happening now. It’s time to wake up America and fix this!

PAUL HARVEY AND THE DEVIL

Remembering this was first broadcast in 1965, it's scary how it
applies to today.
the story...

Do you remember the famous ABC radio news commentator Paul Harvey?
Millions of Americans listened to his programs which were broadcast
over 1,200 radio stations nationwide.
When you listen to it, remember that the original commentary was
broadcast 47 years ago.... April 3, 1965 .
It's short... less than 3 minutes. you won't be sorry..!!!
Copy and paste onto your browser, open and listen.

OK I see the Iraq war is still being talked about to try and make some kind of argument. Here is a new one.
In 1993 which President used the U.S. Army to kill 82 Americans in Texas. Oh thats right Bill Clinton. Why is this not being brought up like the Iraq War. Bill Clinton lied when he said Federal troop did not return fire on theses people. Day one the BATF went in with local law enforcement. The warrant they had should have been served by the local law enforcement only. BATF over stepped their jurisdiction and did a hard entry and it cost them. My heart goes other to their families. Then the U.S. Army was called in and blame 82 men women and children were killed. Oh and by the way Mr. Clinton there was evidence of shots being fired by the Federal agencies on these citizens before the building was set on fire by unknown means. Yes things were done wrong on both sides but where were the Branch Davidians going? Could the siege in Waco not kept going? Were any other people being hurt? The government had nothing but time on it's side but for some reason could not wait them out. Makes you wonder. Why?
Now I see this impeached, womanizing, lying turd is being hailed as a great speaker at the Demo-Rat convention. If being a Socialist Dictator is what you want for a president then veto for Obama. Mrs. Obama and others said Barrack wants to rebuild America from the ground up. That would imply destroying the country and starting over. Only those who think things should be given to them without them earning it or working for will vote for Obama or any Democrat. Oh and that is what socialism is. So the have nots get stuff given to them while the haves work to get what they want. Oh go ahead and say it on the backs of others. All men are created equal everyone has a change to make what they want and be successful. Doing this is on you and you do not deserve anything you have not earned. What did Kennedy say " Ask not what my country can do for me. Ask what I can do for my country". What happened to that? I know give me, give me. I want, I want. It's not fair. Lazy butt people who have been given a hand out all their life instead of a hand up. Give a man a fish he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish he will eat for the rest of his life. What the heck is the government thinking? I know how can I get re elected and suck as much money from the tax payers as I can.
Oh people paying their fair share? Let me see 10% of $50,000.00 is $5,000.00. 10% of $20,000,000.00 is $2,000,000.00. that is fair share. Oh and if you got a tax refund check for more than you paid in taxes you are one of those who either don't pay taxes or do not pay your fair share. The only way to bring this country out of it's funk is to make everyone pay their fair share. That is from the $20,000.00 income to the 2 billion income people. The next thing is to vote people out that do not do the job we sent them to Washington to do. That means look out for the people not themselves. These is directed at all political parties. You were not sent to Washington to play politics. You were sent to Washington to make lives better for the American people not yourselves.

OK I watched CNN, HLN, MSNBC, and FOX News during both of the conventions now. During the Republican convention all but Fox talked long and hard on what the Republicans did wrong in their speeches and things. Now during the Democrat convention they are doing the exact opposite. By law so called News is supposed to report unbiased and truthfully on the news not taking sides. Only an Idiot would not see what is actually going on. It is a violation of Federal law for this to be occurring. When is the Justice Department and FCC going to step up and do their jobs?

The other day, while I was listening to the speakers at the Democrat National Convention, one of the speakers made the statement that the Obama administration had already created more jobs than President George W. Bush Administration created in eight years.
I decided the best way to check the accuracy of that claim would be to go to the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and see what their data on employment and unemployment said about jobs over the last eleven years and nine months. I went to the address listed above, clicked on databases and tools, clicked on top picks, clicked on civilian employment and civilian unemployment and went to the bottom of the page and clicked on retrieve data, clicked on more formatting options, changed the beginning year to 2001 and clicked on include graphs, and then clicked on retrieve data.

The numbers shown are in thousands so you have to add three zeros to the numbers shown.

At first glance, the figures above seem contradictory but that is because they do not take into account population growth. If you go to the census web site above and go to the bottom of the page you will find a graph showing population change from 1910 to 2010. If you click on the year 2000 and then 2010 it will show you that the population increased by 27,323,632 people in ten years or an average of 227,696 people each month. If you divide the number people employed in December of 2010 by the 2010 population you get 45% of the population employed. If 45% of the population increase goes on to be workers you get an average of 102,463 extra workers each month which is why you can create more jobs but still end up with unemployment higher.

Conclusion: the Obama administration and their supporters a lying out the wazoo.

(1) that the employment and unemployment does not stop and start on the day the President takes office. The policies of the previous WH occupant spill over to the new administration! So not only was BO delt the worst hand in modern history economically, but it's devastating effect lasted for many many months (read years ) afterwards. When GW left, we were hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a MONTH ! Now the last 29 months we've been ADDing jobs. So don't stick all of the losses on BO after Jan 21 2009- most of those were W's !

(2) Each month we add about 150,000 to the workforce. When there are no jobs because of a devastated economy and middle class, most will be unemployed or take many months to finally find work. Again the fallout of the Bush disaster.

BUT here's what gets me; The GOP is saying we left you a mess and you didn't fix it fast enough (even though we threw every hurtle we could at you) and so you should give it back to us to FUBAR again with the same stupid economic policies? Now I ask the voters- DO you want to go back to the policies of W, or the economic policies of Clinton? That's your choice! If you give it back to these (literally) "Home wreckers" you need your head examined !!

Yhmil5 doesn't believe my factual story about the pre-9/11 plans to invade Iraq. Really I could care less. But the first guy who told me this was Bill and he voted for W and is a devout GOPer. So I was really struck he was so candid. BUT it's not that I heard from someone second handed... Bills supervisor actually went to DC in April 2001 and was briefed with others at the CDC including Stephen about getting these tests operational by March 2003. Those were their "marching orders" so it's not 2nd handed rumor mill BS. Send me an email at drdavidc@aol.com and I'll give you the complete names. ASK them yourself. You can get it FIRST hand like I did !! You were LIED to yhmil and you don't even recognize it.

#2 we can argue about the word surplus and how its calculated in DC, but many in the MSM believe for 2 years we ran small surpluses... but regardless if you look at the #s.. the deficit spending decreased dramatically under Bill Clinton in his 2nd term. This is what W inherited and squandered ! At worst- very small deficits... and he turned them into ballooning deficits while the likes of Dickie boy shouted "Deficits DON'T matter !'. .. and you want to go back to that ? It took Clinton 6 years to whittle down the deficits from the Reagan-Bush Sr years- those were small compared to Ws. How long do you think it'll take to tune this mess around? It couldn't happen in 4 years even IF the GOP cooperated ( which they didn't).

Mark my words yhmil, BO will be re-elected, because all the GOP has to offer is Mr. Etch-a Sketch ('weather vane' according to McCain your own man). The guy is a jellyfish when it comes to backbone and firm convictions. He's already reversed himself on dozens of issues from abortion, to healthcare, to gay rights. He's a weasel ! Good luck selling that sack of manure !

Like it or not, President Barack Obama made employment promises based on what he already knew he was going to get. His excuses that the economy was worse than he thought it was are just that, excuses. The state of the economy was not some closely guarded secret that was being kept from him and everybody else. When you look at President Barack Obama’s first, only, and still current choice for jobs czar, Jeffrey Immelt; his policy on creating jobs for American citizens is easy to understand and explains why so few have been created.

Not only is President Barack Obama’s policy on job creation easy to understand, he also put our money where his policy is and General Electric is not the only company that has been given taxpayer money to create jobs overseas instead of in the United States of America.

Liberals proudly say that President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s policies created a surplus that President Gorge W. Bush’s administration threw away. According to the United States Treasury’s own records, that is a lie. The treasury’s record show that the debt increased every year that President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was in office and that the increase in debt slowed down only after the republicans took control of congress. The only way he was able to show a surplus during his administration was with bookkeeping tricks (smoke and mirrors).

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
The amendment to the 1933 “Glass-Steagall Act” and the 1956 “Bank Holding Company Act,” that created the housing bubble that eventually collapsed and caused the current economic mess, was supported and signed into law by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Once signed into law, liberal groups such as the now infamous “Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” (ACORN) used their federal funding to pay for lawsuits under the provisions of the “Community Reinvestment Act” to force banks to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford to pay for them. That created the housing building boom; that worked at first because the rising value of housing made it possible for people who could not make their payment to sell their house for more than they owed and pay off their loan. But, when the inevitable rise in interest rates stopped people from buying homes, the bubble collapsed and the result is the economy we have now.

I heard that President George W. Bush tried to do something about it but, after being excoriated by members of congress who supported the Clinton administration’s policy, he slunk off like a whipped dog. Some members of congress, most notably Senator John McCain, also tried to get something done but meet a similar response.

With all the rhetoric that was coming from the United Nations, dozens of other counties, and the Clinton administration concerning how dangerous Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction were; it would have been irresponsible for any administration not to make certain that the Pentagon’s and other federal agency’s contingency plans for Iraq were not up to date.

To take what has been a common practice for decades and turn it into a conspiracy is just as irresponsible as taking the normal ammunition purchases of the federal government’s different agencies and turning it into a conspiracy by President Barack Obama to usurp the election process just so he can stay in power.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"Back to Axelrod's original claim. His overall point is correct that the government was enjoying a substantial surplus when Bush took office and had a big deficit when he departed.

Specifically, Axelrod is right about the surplus Bush began with, and the projected surplus at that point. Axelrod is very close on the deficit at the end of Bush's presidency, but there are two different ways to measure the 10-year projection when Bush left office. The CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. So given that discussion, we'll take Axelrod down a notch to Mostly True."